the site has been up for two weeks, but the 9/11 Blogger article is our first announcement. so, welcome to all you new readers, you're among the first people in the world to see this site!
we hope that the forum grows to be a valuable community resource for the truth movement...
I read your post on 911Blogger and I agree with the general approach you are taking, although I should point out that I am a global warming skeptic.
You may find this website interesting: www.911oz.com .
I am particularly interested in techniques of disinformation and the way in which the media makes use "cognitive dissonance" to shape our view of reality. I have not had a chance to update the website for a while but but the links and articles represent what I beilieve to be the most credible aspects of 911 skepticism. In particular I recommend the article "9/11 For Dummies" which I wrote.
best regards,
911oz
Thanks for stopping by. Its good to see that 9/11 truth reaches all the way down under. We are happy to meet those abroad who can work with us to promote an international truth movement. Due to your expressed concern for credibility, I want to offer a point of fact. The first page I happened to view had a factual error. I know that you would not want to appear to be disinfomation. The facts are presented below. Lots of people in the movement have got this wrong. TruthMove does not consider this evidence to be primary. At best it generally supports the theory that our government was trying to set up Al-qaida as the perpetrators. At worst its a distraction. Hey, don't stop updating and promoting your sight. This movement is just getting started. You could be a leader.
<September 12, 2001: Hijacker’s Passport Found Near WTC
It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the WTC. [ABC News, 10/16/2001; Associated Press, 10/16/2001; ABC News, 10/12/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 10/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.” [9/11 Commission, 2/26/2004] The Guardian says, “The idea that Mohamed Atta’s passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.” [Guardian, 4/19/2002] (Note that, as in this Guardian account, the passport is frequently mistakenly referred to as Atta’s passport.)> - Cooperative Research
I will correct the factual error you pointed out.
One of the aspects of 911 truth seeking which has been of special interest to me is the way in which 9/11 alternative research is sometimes indirectly linked with other ideas such as denial of the holocaust or the proposition that the Apollo moon landings were faked. I have yet to see any convincing evidence of either of these propositions, but there is an association created by people such as Eric Hufschmid, who otherwise presented quite clear and lucid arguments about the WTC demolition etc...
I have noticed that James Fetzer ( of scholars for 911 Truth ) indirectly supports the "Apollo was faked" theory. I have also read some very scathing criticisms of his work on the JFK evidence.
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/
Steven Jones is of course a Mormon, and while that is of no direct concern, his paper asserting evidence for Christ's visit to America casts a big shadow of doubt on his credibility as an empirical scientist.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/ha...
It is possible to take a generous interpretation of all this and merely note that there are many views on many subjects, not all of which we need agree with. It is not that simple however. There is a pattern to all of this, which is far from accidental. It is part of what they call "information warfare", and ignoring it or minimizing its importance is a big mistake.
Notice how the early 911 conspiracy theories were dominated by the "pod" and "missile flash" propositions. These were presented as prima facie evidence in version 1 of Dylan Avery's film and in "911 In Plane Site". I thought those theories were silly at the time because the only evidence presented was blurry photographs, as in so many UFO stories. Those theories, IMO, damaged the 911 truth movement because they were so silly that they turned off many people to the whole spectrum of thought on alternative 9/11 theories.
I'm interested in researching this whole area. I'm sure there is much to be learned by investigating the invesigators.
cheers
Hereward
[/url]
You said a mouthful. I have been equally interested in the large number of people in the movement who appear most often to be honest and critical, yet have some logical Achilles heel that would serve to undermine the public perception that they are reputable scientists, journalists, historians, or leaders. Certainly most of this is simply personal bias. But we can also be relatively certain that some are consciously trying to undermine the movement from within. Who they are is less important than identifying and responding to their tactics.
The founders of TruthMove are keenly aware of the distinction between hypothesis and theory. I, for one, enjoy considering the fanciful proposition that the moon landing was faked. Its a fun story. And as long as I do not confuse a weak hypothesis for a valid theory, this does not present a problem. Unfortunately, many relatively educated people have not decided for themselves where that line is to be drawn. For these people, the truth is to be found somewhere in between external facts and personal bias. This confusion is externally reinforced as this society presents a wide array of false hypotheses as valid theories. For many, freedom and maturity have come to signify their to right think what they want in spite of the facts. We can hope that people will leave their bias at the door, but many do not perceive their bias unless confronted by sheer logic in a manner that promotes their receptiveness.
And then we also have our infiltrators. This will soon be the topic of one or more threads at this forum. And we plan on having a disinfo page up before long. I have often found it surprising how controvercial this topic is within the movement itself. Some people consider it divisive even to raise the issue. It seems that many are uncomfortable with the truth that if any movement was going to be infiltrated, this would be one them. Many in the movement have not considered what form this infiltration would take. Many are not familiar with standard counter-intelligence tactics. Certainly achieving noteriety within the movement, and then associating yourself with something that is highly dubious, would be one of those tactics.
Another tactic is to produce media within the movement that serves to focus people's attention on highly hypothetical or subjective lines of inquiry. Photo analysis is a real problem area. People really want to feel like they can see the evidence. Too few read books.
Keep your eyes open, and ask people why they do things.
You must log in to post.